It's not the anti-rich rhetoric we hear from Obama. Clinton is saying it's good to have some people climbing up over others and getting rich, because then, as their business grows, they're in a position to offer jobs to people.

49 comments:

Greed is good. Profit is good. They are great motivators for success, progress, higher standards of living, and great ways of life. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. Even Clinton understands this.

My wife is a Filipina. At Filipino gatherings, we've had many conversations about why the Philippine economy is so bad. Some of them include:

1. The "crab theory": reportedly, if you put a lot of crabs in a pot and one of them tries to climb out, the others will reach up and drag it back. Filipinos that I've talked to admit they don't want to see someone else prosper at their expense (they expect to be given discounts to the point where someone can't stay in business) and they don't help one another.

2. My wife noted many years ago that she didn't know of a single former Spanish colony that ever amounted to much due to the widespread corruption.

Whay are you so surprised?? Your guy Rush constantly tells his listeners that it's ALWAYS about the Clintons. The Dem Party, hell the country, be damned. There's no question Obama and his people know what a weasel this guy is. Did he seduce you?

There is something to be said about Spanish colonial economic/political dysfunction. Latin America can't help itself in its failures, a la Venezuela, Bolivia, Argentina, and Mexico. And of course Honduras is like one of the poorest countries in the world.

Time to dust off another Clinton "I think I know what they're really up to" conspiracy! No matter if all the previous theories spectacularly were proven false. You can't technically ever be wrong about a Clinton conspiracy. Just throw it out there. Be creative!

Whay are you so surprised?? Your guy Rush constantly tells his listeners that it's ALWAYS about the Clintons. The Dem Party, hell the country, be damned. There's no question Obama and his people know what a weasel this guy is. Did he seduce you?

This what I mean about getting better and better. Clinton is a surrogate, sent by the Obama campaign, or the Democrat Party, to bolster morale for progs, and the results aren't so good for the progs.

And Obama supporters blame the opposition for what their guys do to spoil prog efforts.

Obama is steeped in the leftist crap he grew up with, and Clinton is just a modern liberal.

The real difference I see is between the recent Repub and Dem Presidents. Reagan, and both Bushes wanted to accomplish great things and handle great duties they saw for the power they were handed. Clinton and Obama simply wanted to be great men. The Dems both seemed to me to avoid doing anything truly risky, choosing rather to negotiate opportunities and crises with the primary objective of coming out smelling sweet.

Both men for better or worse took the road of least resistance when war is afoot, and both Dems' greatest accomplishments were actually done by congress without their leadership doing much.

The Dem preference for style over substance, appearance over action, and motivation over results is always a stark difference to me at every level.

The exception is building government up, Dems are absolutely results oriented about that. They don't care what the reason is, if it means more government jobs or bureaucracy, they will get that shit done fearlessly.

I can imagine Clinton was not too happy to watch Obama/Pelosi/Reid undo all his painstaking centrist work of the 90's by going whole hog liberal the last 3-1/2 years. The democrats have purged all their blue dog democrats and are as ideologically pure as when McGovern wrapped up the nomination in 1972.

"I can imagine Clinton was not too happy to watch Obama/Pelosi/Reid undo all his painstaking centrist work of the 90's by going whole hog liberal the last 3-1/2 years."

???!!!???

Hello Sir or Madam, welcome to our Earth. You are apparently a visitor to this universe from the parallel universe 3 exits over. You will find that our present and past is superficially similar to but actually sharply different from the one in which you seem to live.

"As this State's income rises, so does the income of Michigan. As the income of Michigan rises, so does the income of the United States. A rising tide lifts all the boats and as Arkansas becomes more prosperous so does the United States and as this section declines so does the United States."

Cook said: A rising tide drowns those who don't have boats, (must less ships), and floods and destroys all that which is bound in place.

So either Cook has no concept of analogies. Or he thinks that some people do not participate or are affected by economic conditions.

Hint: in an economy we are ALL in the boats in one form or another. No one is not participating. Even those who are on the handout side of the equation, getting welfare, are participating in the economy. If you buy a pack of gum....you are in the boat.

Of course, that is the real Bill Clinton. Do you think you will be happy about being called racist? happy about people who are ready to decimate your spouse's aspirations even though they are not ready for the office but propped up only by their skin color?

Bill Clinton was at least able to realize that the debates we should be having are between whether the proposed solution to any particular problem is one that requires more Government involvement or less. More dependents on the federal teat or less. He favored Big Gov't, except when he had to denounce it for political gain. Even that cynical approach was better than this rigid ideologue we have now.

Obama refuses to admit that there are any other solutions than his own, which obviously do not work. His budgets get ZERO votes. He blames "Congress".

He is incapable of many things, the most egregious is the inability to learn form HIS OWN mistakes. His ideology is so rigid, he thinks it Truth. Those who disagree are: racist, obstructive, un-cooperative, insufficiently deferential to his election victory, etc.

Well, there is the team effort analogy and then there is the solo home run analogy. And then there is world class pandering.

Look at a lot of wealth generation in recent decades (which ultimately tickled down once some of the ventures went public) that started with a small group who broke with convention or who pushed technology to some discontinuity that was advantageous and profitable. Look at IBM establishing a PC hardware standard in the early 80's, Apple Microsoft, Google, hell even HP back in the 1930's.

A lot of that technology wealth is paying Bill Clinton a buttload of cash to "consult" and speak at trade conferences. He's smart guy, he couldn't help but understand this. And yet he chooses some sort of dust-bowl era pulling-together metaphor to feed the peasants in Brew Town.

If he really is preparing the battlefield for 2016, here's hoping his health doesn't hold out that long.

Rising tide lifting a few yachts is what we need. Then we can all swim around the few yachts hoping for a few scraps thrown over the side like seagulls. You know at least something is going to be thrown overboard now and then!

Bill Clinton is smart enough to know when BS is being shoveled by Democrats.

Not hard, given that he is one of the greatest purveyors of bullshit the Democrats have ever had.

For once I have to agree with Cook (clock, stopped, etc.), although he's wrong about the rising tide*. Willie is a pathological liar, mainly because he's delusional - by the time the words leave his mouth, he actually believes whatever he's saying.

It's always astounding how many people still believe he's a centrist. His political idol was J Whacko Fulbright, for Christ's sake.

Robert Cook said: "A rising tide drowns those who don't have boats, (must less ships), and floods and destroys all that which is bound in place."

When I read this comment by Mr. Cook, my first thought was the New Orleans/Katrina aftermath. All these idiots, when the tide was rising, chose not to get of town, but go to the Superdome and wait for the government.

There used to be a Democratic Party in broad agreement on "the issues," so that the party politicians would make up a sort of chorus with a recognizable melody.Today, about all we hear is Obama and his "advisers" serially pandering to various single issue activist groups, often to opposing sides on successive days.

Bill Clinton is Bill Clinton, but he is also a marvelous political talent, which Obama is not.

About Former Spanish colonies, I have read that there is something about the structure of the Spanish language that leads to authoritarian corrupt governance. I don't remember what it is. I just read it. There are those in Spain who are nostalgic for Franco. I have met them. Costa Rica is supposed to be the only truly democratic Spanish speaking country in the world. Even they don't have property rights. You can not buy property in Costa Rica and be sure it is yours. Latin American countries routinely produce more lawyers than engineers. This has been true for generations. I think this has something to do with it.

Wealth redistribution is always "trickle down". The only difference between a distributed system (e.g market) and central system (i.e. controlled) is who determines "fair" distribution. In the former, without a monopoly or monopolistic (e.g. government) influence, it is every individual who participates in the economy, and it is inherently voluntary.

Slick Willie is jumping ship though he claims to be helping. "I'll just get down here and hold this lifeboat steady for you, sir - oops, it's drifting away ... SORRREEE. I mean he is stepping right on the Obama campaign theme. He's too much the politician to do that by mistake. But why is he doing it? Does he by chance think the wheels might really come off and Hilary or he!!! might have to run.